JUDGMENT

Ashok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR No.90 dated 15.05.2022 registered under Sections 307 , 148 and 149 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 25 of the ARMS ACT , 1959 at Police Station Samrala, District Khanna, District Ludhiana (Annexure P-1) and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise (Annexure P-2) effected between the private parties.

2. Pursuant to order dated 15.05.2023 passed by this Court, the parties had appeared before learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana to get their statements recorded. Learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana submitted his report along with copies of statements of the parties vide letter dated 31.05.2023 through learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana which is taken on record. As per the said report, learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, is satisfied that the compromise has been entered upon by the parties voluntarily and without any pressure.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that initially, the petitioner was not named in the FIR and later on implicated on the basis of supplementary statement made by the complainant. No injury has been attributed to the petitioner. As the parties have compromised the matter, vide written Compromise (Annexure P-2), no purpose will be served by keeping the proceedings against the petitioner and the impugned FIR (Annexure P-1), may be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned State counsel has argued that the offence is non-compoundable, so the petition may be dismissed.

5. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail.

6. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and another v. State of Jharkhand and another , (2010) 7 SCC 667 , have held that the ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The tendency of implicating the husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of the criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Their Lordships have further held that permitting complainant to pursue complaint would be abuse of process of law and the complaint against the appellants was quashed. Their Lordships have held as under:

"[27] A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami and Another v. State of Uttaranchal & Others, (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:-

"Inherent powers under section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute."

[28] We have very carefully considered the averments of the complaint and the st